Political MoJo

In another recent case involving a grand jury, white cops, and a black civilian, a grand jury in the east Texas town of Jasper, about two hours from Houston, chose last month not to indict two police officers for the brutal beating of Jasper resident Keyarika Diggles. Diggles had been arrested and jailed in May 2013 over an unpaid $100 parking ticket (which, it turned out, she had been paying in installments.) As you can see in the surveillance video below, at some point officers Ricky Grissom and Ryan Cunningham grab Diggles, slam her head on the counter, pull her hair and drag her across the floor by her feet:

According to the Texas Observer, the officers proceeded to drag Diggles into a dark "detox cell," where her lawyers said she spent hours before being strip-searched by another officer. Here's more from the Observer on the aftermath of the attack:

Diggles settled a civil rights lawsuit against the city and the officers last December for $75,000. And less than a month after the incident, Jasper’s city council voted to fire Cunningham and Grissom. That alone was a stronger response than many allegations of police brutality get, and Jasper Mayor Mike Lout said the council would work with the district attorney to consider criminal charges against the officers. Lout and other city leaders stressed that the Diggles case wasn't a sign of some deeper racial divide in the city, but an isolated incident with the perpetrators swiftly punished.

"We are shocked by the failure of the prosecutor to get an indictment," said Cade Bernsen, Diggles' attorney. "I'm wondering what investigation was done because the video speaks for itself."

According to records obtained by the Observer, Cunningham was hired to join the Jasper County Sheriff's Office in September.

Update 12/3/2014: Attorney General Eric Holder reportedly told New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio the Department of Justice will conduct a federal investigation into Eric Garner's death, following a grand jury's decision not to indict NYPD officer Daniel Pantaleo.

On November 20, minutes after President Barack Obama delivered a speech explaining his executive action on immigration reform that would protect millions of undocumented immigrants from deportation, Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-Minn.) took to Fox News and called on tea partiers everywhere to come to Washington to protest.

Bachmann, the head of the House tea party caucus who is retiring from Congress in weeks, implored the audience to help her fight the "amnesty." She urged them to "melt the phone lines" to congressional lawmakers. And she declared she would be leading a protest on Capitol Hill. "I'm calling on your viewers to come to DC on Wednesday, December 3, at high noon on the west steps of the Capitol," she proclaimed. "We need to have a rally, and we need to go visit our senators and visit our congressman, because nothing frightens a congressman like the whites of his constituents' eyes…We need the viewers to come and help us."

The next day, the Tea Party Patriots, one of the largest remaining tea party groups, sent out an urgent survey to its members. The email, signed by cofounder Jenny Beth Martin, said the group—which has worked closely with Bachmann in the past to organize other rallies at the Capitol—was trying to determine whether such a rally would be a good use of its resources. The email asked these "patriots" to indicate whether they would respond to Bachmann and come to Washington to protest the president's actions on immigration. Apparently, the answer was no. The Tea Party Patriots did not sign up for this ride.

With the tea party not heeding Bachmann's call, her "high noon" rally was downgraded to…a press conference. So on Wednesday, Bachmann appeared on the Capitol steps—joined by Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) and Rep. Steve King (R-Iowa)—and spoke to a passel of cameras and about 40 protesters. Here's a picture of the crowd:

Stephanie Mencimer

What happened to her big protest? Bachmann's office did not respond to a request for comment. A TPP spokesman said in an email that the "gathering in Washington is not a Tea Party Patriots event per se, but we are fully in favor of it and have encouraged our supporters in the area to come out if they can."

The lackluster response to Bachmann's high-noon call is a far cry from five years ago, when the congresswoman made a similar appeal on Fox for a protest against Obamacare. She asked for tea partiers to hit Capitol Hill and tell legislators "don't you dare take away my health care." And the fledgling tea party movement responded enthusiastically. The Koch-backed Americans for Prosperity dispatched dozens buses full of activists—29 just from New Jersey. FreedomWorks, then headed by former House majority leader Dick Armey, organized more. Glenn Beck promoted the event. Thousands of people showed up, as did the entire GOP House leadership. The momentum generated from that rally helped the GOP in the 2010 midterm elections.

Bachmann, after a failed run for the White House, is spending her last days on the Hill writing listicles for BuzzFeed. And even before her final day as a congresswoman, Bachmann, with this non-rally, seems a has-been.

Speaking at the same Baptist church where Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. preached, Attorney General Eric Holder on Monday announced he would soon unveil a plan to end racial profiling "once and for all."

His speech comes just one week after a grand jury decided not to indict Ferguson police officer Darren Wilson in the fatal shooting of 18-year-old Michael Brown. The decision sparked massive demonstrations in the St. Louis suburb and throughout the nation, with protestors demanding justice for Brown. Wilson has since resigned from the force.

Holder said the events that followed Brown's death "are truly national in scope and threaten the entire nation."

"In the coming days, I will announce updated Justice Department guidance regarding profiling by federal law enforcement," he said before a packed Ebenezer Baptist Church. "This will institute rigorous new standards—and robust safeguards—to help end racial profiling, once and for all. This new guidance will codify our commitment to the very highest standards of fair and effective policing."

Protesters chanting “no justice, no peace” briefly interrupted Holder's announcement. They were escorted out and Holder commended their "genuine expression of concern and involvement."

Also on Monday, President Barack Obama introduced a proposal to equip police officers with body cameras.

Update 12/3/2014: Less than eight hours before Scott Panetti was scheduled to die, a federal appeals court ordered a stay of execution in order to “fully consider the late arriving and complex legal questions at issue." Panetti's lawyers responded in a statment: "Mr. Panetti's illness, schizophrenia, was present for years prior to the crime, profoundly affected his trial, and appears to have worsened in recent years. Mr. Panetti has not had a competency evaluation in seven years, and we believe that today's ruling is the first step in a process which will clearly demonstrate that Mr. Panetti is too severely mentally ill to be executed."

Panetti, first diagnosed with schizophrenia in 1978, was convicted of capital murder after he shaved his head, donned camo fatigues, and shot his in-laws in 1992 in a psychotic rage. But today, not even his victims think he should be executed. His ex-wife has said publicly that she believes he is deeply sick and should be spared. In the past month, a host of prominent conservatives and evangelicals have joined with death penalty opponents, mental-health groups, the European Union, the nation of Bulgaria, a former Texas governor, libertarian cult figure Ron Paul, and myriad others who have called on the board and Texas Gov. Rick Perry to spare Panetti. But even that wasn't enough to sway the governor-appointed board.

A more recent shot of Panetti
Texas Department of Criminal Justice

The decision means that Panetti's last real hope of avoiding execution on Wednesday lies with the US Supreme Court. Texas law doesn't give the governor independent authority to commute a sentence unless the pardons board recommends such a move—although Perry could order a one-time 30-day delay. Every Texas court that has heard Panetti's appeals in recent weeks has ruled against him, despite powerful dissents from conservative Republican judges.

With the execution less than 48 hours away, Panetti's lawyers have filed two petitions with the high court asking the justices to halt the execution and review the case to determine whether executing the mentally ill violates the Eighth Amendment. They also argue that Panetti hasn't had a mental competency hearing in seven years, and that his mental state has deteriorated significantly during that time. (He now apparently believes there's a listening device implanted in his tooth, for instance.)

This is a similar issue to the one that won Panetti a reprieve in 2007, when the Supreme Court ruled that he hadn't been afforded due process in assessing his competency to be executed. (A previous Supreme Court ruling bans use of the death penalty on people who can't understand the nature of their punishment.) The 2007 decision gave Panetti the right to a hearing on his mental competency, but it didn't do him much good. Even though Panetti still believed he was going to be executed for preaching the Gospel, and despite the fact that all but one of the doctors who testified in the hearing believed he was seriously mentally ill, the lower courts green-lighted his execution anyway. The Supreme Court denied his last appeal of those decisions this past October, clearing the way for his December 3 execution.

The Supreme Court hasn't been especially sympathetic lately to arguments about mental illness and the death penalty. Last year, it refused to block the execution of another seriously mentally ill inmate in Florida, John Ferguson, who went to his death believing he was the prince of God. But Panetti's pro bono lawyers, Kathryn Kase and Greg Wiercioch, argue that public opinion on the issue is changing, and that the law needs to change with it. They cite a new poll showing that nearly 60 percent of Americans oppose executing someone with a serious mental illness. They also reference new research showing that juries and judges today are far less likely to choose death for a mentally ill defendant than they were 20 or 30 years ago. In 11 former and current death penalty states that allow for a "guilty but mentally ill" verdict, there hasn't been a death sentence imposed on a mentally ill person in at least 20 years.

The Supreme Court petitions also seem clearly targeted at Justice Anthony Kennedy, who was the swing vote in Panetti's favor in 2007, and who is somewhat fond of citing international law in his opinions. Panetti's lawyers emphasize that executing the mentally ill is considered a major human rights violation by most other civilized countries. We'll soon know whether these arguments are proving persuasive, as Texas is moving full steam ahead for Panetti's lethal injection. The high court will have to act quickly one way or another.

The following infographic was created by the Texas Defender Service, a nonprofit group that seeks to fix the flaws in the death penalty process and ensure fair representation for capital defendants:

Calls for more body cams have increased in the wake of Michael Brown's killing in Ferguson. As we reported in August:

"I think body cameras are definitely a net good," says David Harris, a law professor and police behavior expert at the University of Pittsburgh. "They are one of the most prominent technologies to come along in a long time in terms of accountability, evidence gathering, [and] in terms of, frankly, changing behavior on either side of the camera. Nothing is a silver bullet, but this has the potential to be a substantial advance."

Harris, who consults for law enforcement agencies on the side, points to a study by police in Rialto, California. After introducing body-worn video cameras in February 2012, that department reported an 88 percent reduction over the previous year in complaints against officers—and the use of force by its officers fell by nearly 60 percent. A separate British study of one small police department looked at data collected in 2005 and 2006 and found a 14 percent drop in citizen complaints in the six months after cameras were introduced compared to same six-month period of the previous year.

Ginsburg, who at 81 is the Supreme Court's oldest member, is expected to be discharged in the next 48 hours. From the release:

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg underwent a coronary catheterization procedure this morning at MedStar Heart & Vascular Institute at MedStar Washington Hospital Center to place a stent in her right coronary artery. The coronary blockage was discovered after Justice Ginsburg experienced discomfort during routine exercise last night and was taken to the hospital. She is resting comfortably and is expected to be discharged in the next 48 hours.

Ginsburg has pushed back against suggestions she step down while President Barack Obama is still in office. In an interview with Elle last September, she defended her resistance to such calls. "Anybody who thinks that if I step down, Obama could appoint someone like me, they’re misguided. As long as I can do the job full steam…. I think I’ll recognize when the time comes that I can’t any longer. But now I can."

Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel meets with soldiers from the 82nd Airborne Division.

There's little the Washington-centric political-media universe loves more than the story of a fallen star. The defenestration of Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel has reporters and pundits in a schadenfreude-driven tizzy. Was he fired? Was he in over his head? OMG, look at how the White House is dumping on him, as he departs! Who's passing nasty notes in class about him?

The presumably forced resignation of Hagel is indeed big news. The Obama administration is confronting a host of new national security challenges: ISIS, Ukraine, Ebola. So the guy (or gal) in charge of the Pentagon has to be nimble and able to handle this expanding and shifting to-do list. And Hagel, ever since his underwhelming performance at his confirmation hearing, has not been (at least in public) a confidence-inspiring Cabinet member. So perhaps President Barack Obama can do better—though the elbowing Hagel is receiving on the way out seems poor manners.

Yet here's a useful exercise. Compare the red-hot media reaction to Hagel's bye-bye to the response to the New York Times' eye-popping report that Obama signed a secret order to expand the US military mission in Afghanistan next year. The story about one man—yes, one of the cool kids in DC—is at least an order of magnitude higher on the MediaReax-ometer. Any tidbit from an anonymous source about de-Hagelization gets immediate attention from tweeting journos. But the story about this significant policy shift has prompted mostly a yawn.

In case you missed it—the story was posted online on Friday but appeared in Saturday's dead-trees edition—the Times revealed that Obama, who last May said the United States would have no combat missions in Afghanistan in 2015 (and only train Afghan forces and hunt Al Qaeda "remnants"), had secretly authorized American forces

to carry out missions against the Taliban and other militant groups threatening American troops or the Afghan government, a broader mission than the president described to the public earlier this year, according to several administration, military and congressional officials with knowledge of the decision. The new authorization also allows American jets, bombers and drones to support Afghan troops on combat missions.

This is a quasi-BFD—and the result of what the Times called "a lengthy and heated debate that laid bare the tension inside the Obama administration between two often-competing imperatives: the promise Mr. Obama made to end the war in Afghanistan, versus the demands of the Pentagon that American troops be able to successfully fulfill their remaining missions in the country."

In other words, Obama, for good or bad, has decided to extend the war he said he was ending. This report did not produce a cable news frenzy or a storm of tweets. But it's just as important as who's going to be in charge of implementing this major change of plans—if not more so.

President Barack Obama is expected to announce the resignation of Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel on Monday. The New York Times reports that the president's decision to ask Hagel to step down follows a series of meetings, which concluded that a change in leadership was needed in order to deal with international threats including the Islamic State.

Candidates for Hagel's replacement reportedly include former Undersecretary of Defense Michelle Flournoy, former Deputy Secretary of Defense Ashton Carter, and Senator Jack Reed (D-R.I.) Hagel, the only Republican in the president's national security team, is expected to remain until a successor is named.

Less than two years on the job, this is the first major resignation from Obama's cabinet following the Democrats' disappointing midterm elections. From an administration official:

Over the past two years, Secretary Hagel helped manage an intense period of transition for the United States Armed Forces, including the drawdown in Afghanistan, the need to prepare our forces for future missions, and tough fiscal choices to keep our military strong and ready. Over nearly two years, Secretary Hagel has been a steady hand, guiding our military through this transition, and helping us respond to challenges from ISIL to Ebola. In October, Secretary Hagel began speaking with the President about departing the Administration given the natural post-midterms transition time.

Earlier this month, Hagel announced the country's nuclear weapons program would be undergoing a massive overhaul after the Pentagon released a review citing antiquated equipment and poor leadership plaguing the nuclear forces.